On FreeBSD the emphasis and general advice is to use ports for installing stuff.
On OpenBSD the emphasis and general advice is to use packages for installing stuff.
This is why the order is reversed.

Both systems works very similar though: The ports system is used to fetch, build, and install stuff, and to build a package from that. It's just a difference in the opinions and recommendations of the developers.

__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things.

Typically one "ports" software so that it can be compiled into a "package", so a port always comes first.. what the BSD communities call the "ports tree" is simply an infrastructure to built software into packages and to deal with dependencies, the ideas are similar but the implementations differ.

Carpetsmoker is entirely right though, in that context, it shows preference.. user customization of ports is discouraged in the OpenBSD community (..setting custom compile flags, enable options, etc), and they prefer that people use the packages they provide to reduce the support load associated with building software from source manually.

NetBSD's gone in a slightly different direction, they have something called pkgsrc, which brings a BSD-ports-like tree to a wide variety of different platforms and operating systems (..including OS X and some others).

It seems they provide binary packages for a few systems as well, primarily I'm assuming people would build things themselves.. but it appears they tag their source tree with quarterly releases, so I'm assuming packages would target this and be slightly outdated?